People, let's show some restraint

This isn't at all a great debate topic, but I am posting it here so everyone is sure to see it. Percy is more than welcome to delete it, as he sees fit.So many topics have turned into towers of babble. Go for posting quality, not just volume.Posting many messages in a short time period usually only indicates a lack of thought behind the messages.Try to keep the individual messages as concise as possible. This is in both the length of the quotes and the length of the replys. I find it dismal to have to scroll down many screen hights just to read a single message. Did the message in question really have that much to say? Maybe, but I would be inclined to bet against it. A short, well written message will be more powerful than a rambling, incoherent one.Grammar and spelling: I'm not a stickler on these things, but posting a message with a lot of bad grammer and spelling can't help but make you look bad. Maybe use your word processor (if available), and use it's powers to help your writing style. Also, then you have the option of saving a personal copy of your message.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

"So many topics have turned into towers of babble. Go for posting quality, not just volume."
--Towers of babble was a great choice of words, some debates do go on as if they were 'babble' though this does not mean the question at hand is not a valid question. Moose is right on the posting quality and not volume. I find it quite self arresting when viewing absolutelly massive responses, though some people use different techniques such as displaying the sentence they are replying to which is very acceptable."Posting many messages in a short time period usually only indicates a lack of thought behind the messages."
--I would agree, though in self defense, sometimes I have numerous posts I am working on in other documents and they get done as I go through them all switching back and forth at different times so I finish quite simmultaniously."Try to keep the individual messages as concise as possible. This is in both the length of the quotes and the length of the replys. I find it dismal to have to scroll down many screen hights just to read a single message. Did the message in question really have that much to say? Maybe, but I would be inclined to bet against it. A short, well written message will be more powerful than a rambling, incoherent one."
--See above."Grammar and spelling: I'm not a stickler on these things, but posting a message with a lot of bad grammer and spelling can't help but make you look bad. Maybe use your word processor (if available), and use it's powers to help your writing style. Also, then you have the option of saving a personal copy of your message."
--My grammar isn't too bad, though I think my largest problem is run on sentences. I use commas to separate my thoughs at times as if they were replacements for periods, I'm working on it. My spelling I will admit is quite horrible at times, usually it has to do with how late it is, at night my spelling is very ambiguous. Forgive me if my posts are hard to decipher at times, just feel glad that your reading text and not my hand writting that would be lucky to pass for hieroglyphics.--Moose is very right on this one, these questions should be considered and adapted to the best of their ability.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-13-2002]

Ummm, Moose?If I read your OP correctly, you are judging the value of a post based on length? I suppose that explains why you've never commented on one of mine. Just curious: do you also refuse to read Patrick (PS418)'s brilliant geology posts? Or is it subject-dependent? Too bad, I think you're missing some excellent information and missing out on some excellent debates. Your choice, of course.

"do you also refuse to read Patrick (PS418)'s brilliant geology posts?"
--Which one is it? I'd like to read it. ps418 is a tough debater and knows alot of his stuff. He's one of those on here that are interesting to debate with, because its more unlikely that you will miss something.------------------

TC: You can read a fair sample of Patrick's work starting on post #49 of the "Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood" thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
Ummm, Moose?

​

If I read your OP correctly, you are judging the value of a post based on length? I suppose that explains why you've never commented on one of mine. Just curious: do you also refuse to read Patrick (PS418)'s brilliant geology posts? Or is it subject-dependent? Too bad, I think you're missing some excellent information and missing out on some excellent debates. Your choice, of course.

---

Basicly, I'm just trying to encourage the participents to strive for quality in their postings.Personally, I have a real crumby memory for details, and am suffering from an overload of the various information and non-information that is being posted. I know, it is a personal problem.Re: Quetzal posts: I'll try to get back to them. My guess is that they are in genetics topics, which I admit to knowing little about. My biology background is damn weak - I prefer to focus on the geology topics.Re: PS418 posts - I've skimmed the William Scott Flood topic as it has progressed, but the info doesn't sink in well for me. I need to get back to it for a repeated and more careful read.------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

I don't think that EvloveMe (sic) has posted a substantive comment in the 3 posts which I have see so far. Is s/he a troll?

Whoa! EvloveMe's short posts snuck under my radar screen. He was only here yesterday and probably won't return, but please send email to admin@ if anyone sees additional posts in the same vein from him. Thanks to everyone for ignoring him. That's the way to treat trolls: don't even notice them, not even a "don't feed the trolls" message.--Percy

I'm making the assumption that it was just Percy blowing off steam. Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Quicksink, might you be posting too many new topics, or at least too fast? Maybe or maybe not, but think about it. Maybe some of these topics belong in pre-existing topics. And watch out about the hostility.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

[QUOTE]And watch out about the hostility.[/B][/QUOTE]We shouldn't come down to just plain fighting and non-debating, true. But it should certainly be allowed to be very sarcastic or "on the edge," since in this way it can in some cases be showed how ridiculous someone's arguments are.

"We shouldn't come down to just plain fighting and non-debating, true. But it should certainly be allowed to be very sarcastic or "on the edge," since in this way it can in some cases be showed how ridiculous someone's arguments are."
--Slightly agreeable, if someone wishes to be sarcastic, that is their descision, though they sertainly should not cross the line or make a line for them to cross and they cross it. I have seen this before, it is not the most impressive impression on any of the debaters here or any viewers of the forum. When being skeptical and haveing a sarcastic style, you had better be quite flawless in all you say, otherwize its like setting yourself up for a hard blow. Also, it lowers credibility and isn't the most sophisticated bias to have protruding from your keyboard.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-14-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-14-2002]

This plead for restraint is addressed to TB.As I type this, your member profile indicates that you joined in on 5/15, and have already posted 150 messages. That averages 18+ per day. Have you had that much material to contribute?When you first showed up, you posted what amounted to being the same comments in several different topics. While the comments may have had a validity in each of those topics, I think it would be best to try to restrict yourself more. These multiple postings of the same material may very well qualify as spam.When you first showed up, this site had just had (or was still having?) an encounter with a person whose name I don't recall, and is probably best left unmentioned anyway. This person was so obnoxious that a total banning was obviously the only choice Percy could make. Initially, you were looking to become just as bad; fortunately that didn't come to be. I look forward to further conversations with you.I must agree with Joe Meert, that the new Grand Canyon topic is redundant with the earlier one. I would recommend that Percy close it. I will also confine my contributions to the earlier Grand Canyon topic.My perspective is, that things have been getting awful cluttered around here lately. This clutter is something we need to try to minimize.Regards,Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Moose,I respectfully disagree. To mention ksc & TB in the same sentence is an insult to TB.TB isn't bad at all IMHO, I'd like to see more evidence rather than "I think a global flood better explains it", but it's early days. When presented with Humphreys (in my opinion) lies, he accepted the deception for what it was. A lot of YECS wouldn't (TC excepted), so credit where it's due.There is a trend for all newcomers to post a lot, so, if there's any danger, it is that TB will post too much & not be able to keep up with the replies. This would be irritating, as many posts are the end result of time consuming research.Personally, I hope TB stays around.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Moose, I hope we can be friends. I came here excited that here was a place I could:(i) Bounce my synthesis of the issue around. I am not just a regurgitator. I have a well defined understanding of the issue and have some novel thoughts concerning ways to reconcile mainstream and creationist thought (admittedly that are still very creationist).
(ii) I also came to clear up my misconceptions that I undountedly have. I am open minded enough that I expect to have to modify my ways of thinking. I doubnt I will be swayed to ditching creaitonism but that is not the primary purpose of this BBS.I have actually only deposited about 4 or 5 main pieces of information and the rest has been my responses to many here. If you find by 'repetions' spam I'm sorry but for the reason of clarity and new comers I do repeat myself rather than be misunderstood. I am a nitpicker for clarity and find I repeat things more than most. I actaully thought it was a good trait of mine. I also try and avoid jargon and explain it when I do use it.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-23-2002]